• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

JL: Doom why not more JLU?

My main point was indeed about Morris. The rest was supplemental information to provide context. To wit, it's become fairly standard to cast African-American actors as J'onn, so it's not surprising that his human disguise would be represented that way in, now, two adaptations.
 
And if you listen very carefully, you can hear that it is, and mostly always has been, Phill Morris playing Vandal Savage in Justice league toons.

Oh look?

Former Martian Manhunter Miguel Ferrer played Vandall Savage on Young Justice yesterday.

:)

funny?

I thought... 50 thousand years ago that all humans were black?

Has Vandal been bleaching his skin?

Although he has to find replacement organs (and stretches of skin one would suppose?) from his descendants (Red Arrow.) so the skin on his back is not the skin he was born with but just transplanted tissue and that he prefers white donors?
 
Yet they seem to try and appeal to fans of JLU by using the same voice cast.

I've already explained, they didn't make that choice to appeal to the fans, they made that choice because they knew these actors, worked well with them, and knew that they understood the characters and could be trusted to give good, solid performances. Andrea Romano has explained this in many interviews.
So then why not use every movie. Why did they reunite a lot of the old cast for this one and not the others?

Using the old voice actors won't confuse the new generation of 12 year olds, though, whereas if it's a continuation of a decade old continuity, it might. ;)
As if that would make a difference to a 12 year old. They have to jump in somewhere.
 
I've already explained, they didn't make that choice to appeal to the fans, they made that choice because they knew these actors, worked well with them, and knew that they understood the characters and could be trusted to give good, solid performances. Andrea Romano has explained this in many interviews.
So then why not use every movie. Why did they reunite a lot of the old cast for this one and not the others?

Again, Romano has explained this in her interviews. There's more than one person making the decisions here. It's not a monolithic "they," but various tiers of employers and employees with their own views and priorities. The executives in charge of WB Animation want to vary the casts and avoid continuity. Romano likes working with the familiar actors, and she's pushed for them in the past, but has often been overruled. But on occasion, she's been able to convince her employers that the old guard was the best cast for a particular project, and this is one such case. (And this is just my own speculation, but I wonder if maybe the new cast in Crisis on Two Earths got lukewarm reviews, so they were less willing to gamble with casting the next JL project.)

And really, I don't think they should use the old cast for every project. A lot of the DC Universe movies have been distinctive enough that they needed a different cast. The New Frontier benefitted hugely from Kyle Maclachlan as a very Silver-Agey Superman and Jeremy Sisto's really effective Batman (and it was cool to hear Lucy Lawless as Wonder Woman). Batman: Year One worked well with Bryan Cranston as Gordon and Ben McKenzie as Batman; their voices fit these particular versions of the characters well and helped give the film a distinctive flavor. And of course Under the Red Hood brought us Bruce Greenwood, who was so good as Batman that he's now playing the role on Young Justice and is a worthy successor to Conroy.

Conversely, the two Superman/Batman movies were so ridiculous that I wish they hadn't used the familiar DCAU cast, who deserved better. And there have been disappointments, like James Denton and Christina Hendricks as Superman and Lois in All-Star Superman.

So yeah, it's a gamble. But it really would not work to use the same cast in every one of these movies, especially the really idiosyncratic ones.
 
^Doom isn't a continuation of JLU. It's in a separate continuity despite having the same actors. For one thing, it has Hal Jordan as GL instead of John Stewart. (And although it's reusing Nathan Fillion as Hal, I doubt it's in continuity with Emerald Knights.)

Funny you should mention John Stewart...I was watching JL:Doom and they depicted Jonn Jonzz as a black man (which is a first) and called him John.

I think Young Justice did it too.
 
Funny you should mention John Stewart...I was watching JL:Doom and they depicted Jonn Jonzz as a black man (which is a first) and called him John.

I think Young Justice did it too.

Ahh, good catch. He took on an ethnically African appearance in "Targets." So Doom is the third time he's been portrayed that way, not the first. (And it's not surprising, since Young Justice and Doom have the same character designer, Phil Bourassa.)
 
Have you accepted Batman as your savior? (Of course, on the Internet, there are bound to be people who'd say "Yes.")
 
Well the Green Goblin and Nosferatu also came back to life after most thought it was a good idea to bury them.

Seriously!?

Are you reading Avengers?

Vision: "Where did Osborn go?"

Geek in the crowd: "He flew off in that direction."

Vision "What? Norman Osbborn can't fly?!"

Not quite up there with "But, Buffy doesn't have a sister" although in same line of dramatis repose... I think he's been huffing on that Supercrack that made the Sentry.

Seriously!?

Seriousl!?

Those Spider-Man movies were AWFUL!
 
avengeme-1.jpg


Anyway, re; JL: Doom; while the voice cast was brilliant - I especially liked Michael Rosenbaum's subtle differences between his Wally Flash and Barry Flash - the actual film in itself was quite a letdown. :(

Even given the changes to Batman's plans to disable the League from the comic, where they were inventive and unexpected, baring the Green Lantern and Martian Manhunter ones (Though Hal's takedown was pretty pathetic), the villain's complete and utter fumble at follow-through just had me smacking my head in frustration.

Now, I know cartoon/comic book villains are all ego, stupid in the extreme on the whole, I still couldn't get over how they just popped the champagne and went about their evil plan. :confused:

Seriously, they were broadcasting Superman's death on TV! Savage wasn't even bright enough to leave the news on in the background to make sure the guy stayed down?! :brickwall:

I know, I know, it's for kids, but it just really ruined the experience for me. And let's not even touch the idea of how it took Batman's genius for the guy with the Kryptonite heart to cotton on to using a Kryptonite bullet to kill Supes. :wtf:

I really shouldn't be allowed to watch TV at all. :shifty:
 
Wait? that was Barry?!

This is such a fricking...

Surely that means that Phill LeMar could have played Hal Jordan?

(Snigger)

Fillion wanted to be Jordan.

We can't argue with the intensity of a b-list star power!

But that doesn't mean that Phill couldn't have played ANYONE ELSE!

Maybe even Hawkman so that he would'a still been laying pipe with Hawkgirl.

(Not that that's really important, but I haven't said "laying pipe" in quite a while.)

But there is no fucking way that Barry, 20 years older and a cop, would have fallen for the same "trap" as Wally. I'm not saying that he couldn't have been trapped, just a more mature and elegant trap than something that would stymie the Pepsie generation.
 
To be fair, the Mirror Master here was the most competent version of the character I've ever seen onscreen. Sandy Rivers can really bring the menace when he wants to.

I'm always keen to see LaMarr reprise his Black Vulcan, er, Supervolt, from Harvey Birdman.
 
I know, I know, it's for kids...

Why do people keep saying that? These movies are specifically designed to be rated PG-13 and to be marketed at an older audience than the DC-based television shows. They're aimed primarily at comics fans, who these days are mostly older teens and adults.
 
Yeah I'd hardly call "Batman: Under the Hood" kid friendly. It is probably the darkest DTV they'd done. I expect that the two part "Dark Knight Returns" will at least match this tone. These are not for kids, but like Christopher stated, targeted at comic book fans (thus the adaptations of popular graphic novels and stories) and older teens.
 
When I was 12, my uncle wouldn't let me rent Robocop from the video store AGAIN.

'I've already seen it, what's the big deal?"

"You're not 16."

It is a child's mandate and duty to devour media generations too old for them.

Age appropriateness is for pussies.

(In that direction.)
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top